Alabama legislature advances bills that would outlaw trans medical care
npr.org
npr.org
AFAIK this and similar bills outlaw what could be termed “body modification” for under-18 children - which is roughly in line with overall limitations on the freedoms of underage individuals (e.g. regarding technically-consensual sex, or vulva surgery - which is legally “female circumcision” if performed on underage women). Obviously the specific facts differ (the whole point of hormone blockers is to be taken before puberty) but to term it “outlawing trans medical care” is highly politically charged and completely misleading.
> AFAIK this and similar bills outlaw what could be termed “body modification” for under-18 children
Surgery recommended by a doctor is not "body modification," it is medical treatment.
Also, this goes far beyond surgery. It also outlaws the use of prescription drugs.
> roughly in line with overall limitations on the freedoms of underage individuals (e.g. regarding technically-consensual sex, or vulva surgery - which is legally “female circumcision” if performed on underage women
First of all, minors can have consensual, legal sex... with each other. Age-of-consent laws are intended to protect children from adults, not from themselves. I don't see what this has to do with anything, because it's unrelated to a medical condition and doesn't require a doctor to carefully manage it.
Second, "female circumcision" is not "vulva surgery," it is usually mutilation of the clitoris intended to eliminate female pleasure. It is not something a minor would (or could) seek as a treatment for any medical condition.
But there is nothing like that here.
So, are you saying it's now also outlawed male mutilation too? Because, circumcision serves zero positive purpose and has many negatives.
I don't remember "choosing" to be circumcised, parents weren't even religious it just "kinda happened" nobody "knows why". My kids are NOT circumcised and never will be unless they choose.
Trans alteration on the other hand is a rare, personally chosen procedure - only chosen after due diligence and failure to do the procedure often results in self-esteem issues and sometimes death (suicide). Very low percentages < 1% ever change their mind about it.
It may not even be accurate to say it's a "choice" rather than just the way they're born/wired and an inevitable outcome regardless of what age it occurs.
On social issues, threads tend to get brigaded, people talk past each other, and generally nothing new/constructive is added.
I think this site specifically attracts people who are not deeply knowledgeable about (or interested in) the nuances of social issues, and the consequence is that the discussions are poor.
I don't think that's a bad thing. You can have great, substantive discussions elsewhere. It would be nice (and consistent with HN guidelines) to have a place that isn't an incessant culture war.
From my perspective, I have been torn between allowing minors to get life-changing treatment without some adult's approval (besides the doctor), just because the longer term consequences are generally not perceivable for the child yet. This has nothing to do with hormones treatments specifically.
But on the topic of transitioning, just like with some other treatments, I understand why it is available in some states, as it can be dangerous for the child if the parent/guardian knows.
I'm still surprised this particular bill would go as far as to not even allow that option. I mean, not surprised by Alabama and I don't respect their people, representatives, legislative process or their courts, but this still seems distinctly malicious.
So in this case, cool for them, now find a city/state that allows treatment.
But you know what? That doesn't solve the problem. You can't just ask people to leave their family homes, which also costs a lot of money and requires leaving behind a job. You can't just have "discrimination zones" in the country, where local jurisdictions get to decide that they violate human rights.
Where people choose to live is not an Econ 101 "efficient market".
The losing battle is coercing a majority into uniform perspectives which is impossible.
Just to be clear:
1) You already have the right to do this as long as you're not a government entity or a business.
2) You seem to have a "live and let live" philosophy, which I also do. That's the problem with this bill. It is not letting people live -- it's taking away their right to privately seek medical treatment for a serious, life-threatening issue.
It's amazing how "libertarians" suddenly become very pro-government when the government is enforcing something they like.
Stallman has been vilified for suggesting that young teenagers can consent, which he (fortunately) retracted.
I'm surprised that irreversible surgery is something that teenagers can generally consent to in the USA.
Consenting to therapeutic surgery with the extensive oversight of multiple doctors is
ABSOLUTELY NOT ANALOGOUS
to an adult raping a child. If you don't see the difference in those two scenarios, I don't think it's worthwhile to argue with you further.
And of course males should not be on teams for women, what is the point of women's sports then?
Do you have evidence that this safeguards children?
> And of course males should not be on teams for women, what is the point of women's sports then?
There is no "point" to any children's sport. It's a way to get exercise, entertainment, and a better understanding of teamwork.
If a child identifies as a girl, looks like other girls, and has been treated by a doctor to have a body that matches their brain, why should anyone force them to play on a boys' team?
Because this is what we've accepted and allowed for many decades? The government controls prescriptions, standards, certification, etc. You may not like some of the laws, but probably agree with others.
I'm making no statement on the topic from the article, just pointing out that we've long given government the power to regulate health care decisions.
Alabama is trying to ban all known treatments for trans people. There is no analog for that because it is based on the underlying condition, not the treatment.
Even in the war on drugs, where drug use is often criminalized, there is not a blanket ban on all treatments for drug addiction. In fact, doctors can give people highly addictive drugs to get them off of even-more-addictive drugs.
Why not separate competitors by the physical abilities that matter in their sport, rather than by genitals? We already do this partially within some sports, such as with the different weight classes in boxing. And of course it is routine in school sports to separate athletes by age so that the smaller, less experienced kids don't get totally whomped on.
Besides dealing with the transgender issue, it would also provide more competitive and challenging and fun sports for many non-transgender kids that currently do not get that, either because they are on the smaller/lighter/weaker side of the boy's bell curve and can't get on the team (and would get creamed if they did), or because they are on the taller/heavier/stronger side of girl's bell curve and aren't really challenged on the current girl's team.
Human biology is binary in terms of gametes.
Gametes are intrinsically linked to hormones and human development.
It makes sense to separate leagues in terms of natural, general groups like women/men.